# data[].attributes.body
After reading Morgan's post, I became curious about researching polygamy and finding out more information about it. Here is a video from the show Sister Wives that mentions legalizing polygamy. In Utah, polygamy is a felony. The wives are using the slogan "family, not felons" to promote their stance. Do you think polygamy should be a felony? Why or why not? What do you think about this slogan?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sister Wives March on Capitol to Legalize Polygamy in Dramatic Supertease: 'Family, Not Felons'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sister Wives returns Jan. 7 at 8 p.m. ET on TLC

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses whether or not parents should be able to choose the sex of their baby. With in vitro fertilization there is an extra screening that can take place that determines quite a bit about the embryo including gender. Do you think parents should be able to determine the sex of their babies? Do you agree that it could create gender bias? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Story highlights

Many couples trying to conceive a child have at least some inkling of whether they want a girl or a boy. These preferences have made some resort to less-than-surefire methods, from taking vitamins to timing when they have sex in order to influence gender.

But with the growing popularity of in vitro fertilization, more and more parents-to-be are gaining the ability to determine, with almost 100% certainty, the gender of their baby. This week, model Chrissy Teigen and her husband, singer John Legend, announced they not only wanted a girl but chose the gender of their baby, a daughter, due this spring.

But decisions over whether couples should be given this choice, and what the consequences of it could be, are anything but certain.

Doctors have been grappling with these questions for years. In 1999, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a professional organization, held the opinion that using IVF for sex selection should "not be encouraged." But last year, the group eased its stance and urged clinicians to develop their own policies as to whether or not to offer the service in their practice.

"From my own personal perspective, I don't think there's anything unethical about any of it, however it's ethically controversial," said Dr. Mark Sauer, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Columbia University Medical Center.

Some people view choosing the gender of the baby as a part of the concern that IVF is upsetting a natural process, and those concerns date back to the first IVF baby born in 1978, said Sauer, who is a member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee, which issues opinions about assisted reproductive technologies.

Some of the loudest outcry over sex selection and IVF in general can be heard in the public response to celebrity news. Teigen faced an uproar when she announced that she chose to have a female embryo implanted after she and Legend underwent IVF because they had difficulty conceiving. People wondered publicly whether Kim Kardashian and Kanye West selected the sex of their baby boy born in December.

But what are the most common concerns that experts and the general public have over sex selection?

It is not safe for the embryo

IVF on its own does not reveal anything about the sex of the embryo. In the conventional method, a doctor retrieves a woman's eggs and fertilizes them in a Petri dish. After letting the resulting embryos grow for a few days, the doctor looks at them under the microscope and implants one (or more) of the embryos that appear to be most viable in the woman.

However, over the last 20 years, women and couples have increasingly had the option of adding a screening step to their IVF cycle, which determines a lot about the embryos, including gender. In 2013, 6% of IVF procedures involved screening for specific diseases. A 2008 survey of clinics in the United States found that 74% offer the service.

One type of more general screening, known as pre-implantation genetic screening or PGS, involves taking one cell from the embryo and looking at its chromosomes. The rest of the embryo is frozen while doctors carry out the test. It helps doctors determine which embryos are most viable and rule out chromosomal abnormalities responsible for conditions such as Down syndrome and Turner syndrome.

"Inherent to (all these types of) screening is knowing the sex as well," Sauer said.

Sauer lets couples decide if they want to know the sex of the embryos and if so, to choose which to implant. They know the questions are coming - it's part of the informed consent when couples order the screening - and most of them do want to know the sex of the embryos and also want to decide which gender to implant, Sauer said.

Some doctors have argued that manipulating the embryo in order to do the screening carries " intrinsic risk " to the embryo. Despite these concerns, there is currently no evidence that it is unsafe, Sauer said. "But when you've got millions of babies (who were screened in this way), you get less and less concerned that you are doing harm," he said.

Likewise, there is growing evidence that IVF in general is safe, Sauer said. A 2015 study looked at more than a million assisted reproductive technology procedures between 2000 and 2011 and found no evidence for concerning complications, although there were increases in reports of ovarian pain and other side effects.

If anything, the screening step may lead to safer pregnancies. The better job doctors can do at determining which embryos are most viable, the more likely they may be to implant only one embryo and reduce the "epidemic of multiple births in this country," Sauer said. "In the future, it may become the standard of practice to screen almost every embryo."

It could lead to gender bias

So far there is no evidence, at least in the United States, that giving couples the option of selecting the sex of their child could lead to a surplus of girls or boys. "Let's face it, there is discrimination against women, but I don't sense in the practice of assisted reproductive technology, at least in my experience, there is an overwhelming bias" toward one sex or the other, Sauer said.

There are concerns, particularly in some Asian countries, about societies valuing boys more than girls, "but to some extent this could be a cultural stereotype," said Brendan Foht, assistant editor of The New Atlantic, a journal that publishes articles by experts and the general public on bioethical issues.

Even if sex selection is not likely to skew the gender ratio in the United States anytime soon, there is a general philosophical concern that parents should not have this level of control over their offspring. "Sex selection kind of undermines the concept of unconditional love and obligation by making the love conditional upon the child being a certain thing, in this case, a boy or a girl," Foht said.

Sauer is less worried that choosing gender will affect how a parent loves their child. "They really just want to have that experience. They love their children. It's not like they think one sex is better than the other, but they think, 'Wouldn't it be nice to have a child of (this) gender?'" he said. This kind of thinking sometimes happens if, for example, a couple already has three boys and wants to try for a girl, a concept sometimes called "family balancing."

It could divert resources away from medically necessary IVF

Currently, the only reliable way for parents to "balance" their family in terms of the sexes of their children is through IVF - although it is possible to some extent to select for gender using intrauterine insemination, by separating female and male sperm. This is a much less precise science. "The best techniques are about 90% to 95% successful," but there's a lot of variation, Sauer said. In contrast, the reliability of sex selection using IVF is about 100%.

Join the conversation

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

Still, there are probably not a lot of couples that specifically carry out IVF in order to be able to choose the gender of their child. But it's hard to know for sure. IVF clinics do not have to report on the motives of their clients. Currently federal law requires fertility clinics to report their success rates, but other aspects, such as clients' reasons for using assisted reproductive technology or why they decided to have screening done, are not included in the data reporting.

"It's a for-profit industry, so if customers come in with some idiosyncratic desire for IVF, they're probably not going to turn them away," Foht said. Nevertheless, some insurance plans do cover IVF, as well as screening, and in these cases it's conceivable that there could be competition for limited IVF resources, he added.

A number of countries, including the United Kingdom and Canada, have placed bans on sex selection for "social uses," as opposed to when it is used to avoid the risk of sex-linked diseases, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which primarily affects boys. However, ethicists have challenged these types of bans, arguing that sex selection will not lead to gender imbalance in the population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their baby? | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many couples trying to conceive a child have at least some inkling of whether they want a girl or a boy. These preferences have made some resort to less-than-surefire methods, from taking vitamins to timing when they have sex in order to influence gender.

# data[].attributes.body
This semester, Morgan and I have had multiple discussions on this topic so I wanted to find an article about it. We have considered whether God is male, male and female, or neither. This article argues that he is neither. Do you think God is male? Do you think he is male and female? Do you think he is neither? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses genetic components to homosexuality. Do you think the root of homosexuality is biological? Do you think there are social and psychological factors that also influence homosexuality? If so, what are they?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

Over a person's lifetime, myriad environmental factors -- nutrition, poverty, a mother's love, education, exposure to toxic chemicals -- all help shape the person he will become.

Researchers working in the young science of epigenetics acknowledge they are unsure just how an individual's epigenome is formed. But they increasingly suspect it is forged, in part, by the stresses and demands of external influences. A set of chemical marks that lies between the genes, the epigenome changes the function of genetic material, turning the human body's roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes on or off in response to the needs of the moment.

Ngun's study of twins doesn't reveal how or when a male takes on the epigenomic marks that distinguish him as homosexual. Many researchers believe that a person's eventual sexual preferences are shaped in the uterus, by hormonal shifts during key stages of fetal brain development.

By imprinting themselves on the epigenome, though, environmental influences may powerfully affect how an individual's genes express themselves over the course of his life. Ngun's findings suggest they may interact with genes to nudge sexual orientation in one direction or the other.

"The relative contributions of biology versus culture and experience in shaping sexual orientation in humans continues to be debated," said University of Maryland pharmacology professor Margaret M. McCarthy, who was not involved in the current study. "But regardless of when, or even how, these epigenetic changes occur," she added, the new research "demonstrates a biological basis to partner preference."

To find the epigenomic markers of male homosexuality, Ngun, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine, combed through the genetic material of 47 sets of identical male twins. Thirty-seven of those twin sets were pairs in which one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. In 10 of the pairs studied, both twins identified as homosexual.

In identical twins, DNA is shared and overlaps perfectly. But the existence of twin pairs in which one is homosexual and the other is not offers strong evidence that something other than DNA alone influences sexual orientation. Ngun and his colleagues looked for patterns of DNA methylation -- the chemical process by which the epigenome is encoded -- to identify the missing factor in partner preference.

McCarthy and other experts cautioned that the discovery of epigenomic marks suggestive of homosexuality is a far cry from finding the causes of sexual preference.

The distinctive epigenomic marks observed by Ngun and his colleagues could result from some other biological or lifestyle factor common to homosexual men but unrelated to their sexuality, said University of Utah geneticist Christopher Gregg. They could correlate with homosexuality but have nothing to do with it.

"Epigenetic marks are the consequence of complex interactions between the genetics, development and environment of an individual," said University of Cambridge geneticist Eric Miska. "Simple correlations -- if significant -- of epigenetic marks of an individual with anything from favorite football player to disease risk does not imply a causal relationship or understanding."

One longtime researcher in the field of sexual orientation praised Ngun's use of identical twins as a means of teasing apart the various biological factors that influence the trait.

"Our best guess is that there are genes" that affect a man's sexual orientation "because that's what twin studies suggest," said Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey, who has explored a range of physiological markers that point to homosexuality's origins in the womb. But the existence of identical twin pairs in which only one is homosexual "conclusively suggest that genes don't explain everything," Bailey added.

While Ngun's research needs to be replicated in larger studies of twins, it advances the fitful process of better understanding how - and when - a boy's sexual orientation develops, Bailey said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves. On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C.

# data[].attributes.body
Since we discussed this in class this week I decided to find an article on sexual fetishes. This article describes what a sexual fetish is and where it comes from. Do you agree with the points of the article? Do you agree that a sexual fetish is not a disorder in its nature, but can get to that level if it causes distress?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While you might like the sight of your partner in a pair of high heels during sex, that doesn't necessarily mean you have a shoe fetish.

A fetish is sexual excitement in response to an object or body part that's not typically sexual, such as shoes or feet. They're more common in men.

Many people with fetishes must have the object of their attraction at hand or be fantasizing about it, alone or with a partner, in order to become sexually aroused, get an erection, and have an orgasm.

A person with a fetish might masturbate while they hold, smell, rub, or taste the object. Or they might ask their partner to wear it or use it during sex.

Most Common Fetishes

People can "fetishize" almost anything.

There are many web sites about lots of fetish interests, says Richard Krueger, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. "Anything you could imagine."

According to a study, the most common fetishes involve body parts, such as feet, or body features, such as obesity, piercings, or tattoos. The feet are by far the most common. Body fluid, body size, and hair fetishes aren't far behind.

After body parts comes things you wear. The same study put clothes worn on the hips and legs, such as stockings and skirts, at the top of the list. Footwear, then underwear, ranked closely behind.

Fetishes that involve the feel of a certain material, often leather or rubber, are also common. Some people like dressing themselves and their partner in furry animal costumes.

Where Do Fetishes Come From?

Sexual behavior experts don't agree on the causes. Some people can trace their attraction back to early childhood, before they were aware of their sexuality.

A fetish can also come from seeing inappropriate sexual behavior during childhood or from sexual abuse, says Kenneth Rosenberg, MD. He's a psychiatry professor at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Are Fetishes OK?

A sexual fetish is not a disorder by definition, but it can reach that level if it causes intense, lasting distress.

Continued

"Whether somebody is doing this by themselves or with a partner, if they're happy with it, then it's not an issue," Krueger says, as long as it causes pleasure and no one is being forced to take part.

"My patients come to me because they feel it's a problem," Rosenberg says. "Their behaviors are not interesting, fun, or even sexy. They are not simply experimenting with novel means of sexual expression. They are desperate, compulsive, and sometimes so distressed by their behaviors that suicide is a consideration."

When it's a disorder, it feels out of control. Someone might disappear from work or home to practice their fetish in secret. This fascination could also keep them from doing their job.

"A physician could have a foot fetish, for example, and spend a large amount of time and attention on his patients' feet," Krueger says.

People with these disorders might also steal to get the object of their desire. Often, they can't have meaningful sexual relationships with other people. They might prefer to have time alone with their object, even when they're in a relationship with another person.

"If your partner said, 'Wear a pair of sexy shoes tonight,' you'd probably say, 'Why not?' But if your partner said, 'You can sleep in the other room, just leave me your shoes,' that would be a problem," Rosenberg says.

Standard treatment includes medication and talk therapy with a psychiatrist or counselor.

Still, some fetishes can be harmless. A recent study on "adult baby/diaper lovers" found that among nearly 1,800 men and 140 women who report having this fetish, most said they were "comfortable" with their fetish and that it wasn't a problem.

The same can be said of people who enjoy bondage, discipline or domination, sadism, and masochism, commonly known as "BDSM," Rosenberg says. As long as everyone agrees, then chances are "no one's getting hurt in a way that is extreme or permanent, and everyone's happy with what's happening."

Sources

SOURCES:

Scorolli, C. International Journal of Impotence Research, published online Feb. 15, 2007.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

Hawkinson, K. Archives of Sexual Behavior, published online Jan. 29, 2014.

Richard Krueger, MD, associate clinical professor, Columbia University, N.Y.

Kenneth Rosenberg, MD, clinical associate professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, N.Y.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just because your partner likes to see you in sexy high heels doesn't mean he has a fetish. Fetishes can be part of a healthy sex life, but they can also be the signs of a sexual disorder, experts tell WebMD.

# data[].attributes.body
As we have discussed in class, educating children appropriately about sex and sexuality is important. This article gives an age by age guide to teaching children about sex. What do you think about what it says for each age? Do you think anything should be added or taken away in a certain age group mentioned? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Talking to your kid about sex can be daunting. So we asked the experts how and when to cover everything from sex and puberty to gender identity and consent.

Photo: iStockphoto

Now a mom to a 10-month-old and a two-and-a-half-year-old, King wants to keep that promise. There's just one problem. "I need some basic guidance, an outline perhaps, of what to talk about and when," she says.

King's uncertainty is hardly unique, says Nadine Thornhill, a Toronto-based sex educator and mom to an 11-year-old. "This is what I do for a living and I still struggle to have these conversations with my own child." She notes that, while it's normal to feel awkward and nervous, it's important to focus on being honest. "There's more risk with not telling them enough than telling them too much," she says, adding that it's OK to admit that you don't have all the answers.

Just before you tackle any of your child's sex-related inquiries, Cory Silverberg, sex educator and author of Sex Is A Funny Word: A Book About Bodies, Feelings And You, suggests you first ask a clarifying question such as "Where did you hear that word?" in order to give an appropriate response.

While pop culture likes to portray teaching kids about sex as just one big "talk," experts agree that sex is something kids should always be learning about. They recommend weaving sex into everyday discussions, layering in more information over time and introducing certain concepts at specific ages. With that in mind, we've put together this age-specific guide to help you learn how to talk to kids about sex.

How to talk to kids about sex from birth to age 2

"The process of talking about sex should start before they're verbal," says Silverberg. That means incorporating the proper names for genitals and body parts into everyday activities like bath time. While Silverberg isn't against also using cutesy names, "Penis, vulva, vagina, clitoris, bum and nipples are all terms that every toddler should know," he says, explaining that they need these words to communicate health issues or injuries.

Closer to age two, you can start talking to your kids about when and where it's appropriate to explore their bodies. If your toddler has the tendency to touch his genitals-which is perfectly normal-use it as an opportunity to explain how that's something we do in the privacy of our bedrooms.

"You want to be really gentle," Thornhill says, explaining that you don't want your child to feel like he's doing something shameful.

How to talk to kids about sex when they're 2 to 5 years old

Establishing that kids have a say over their own bodies also helps with keeping them safe. While you can skip the explicit details, now is when you should be telling your child that others should never ask to or try to touch their genitals. Thornhill says it's important to convey that your kids can tell you about inappropriate actions at any time, even if they've previously kept it a secret.

At this age, kids can be very curious about each other's bodies. Thornhill explains that it's important to acknowledge this inquisitiveness and use it as an entry point to discuss your family's rules and values. "Talk to them explicitly about when it's appropriate to be naked," she says. And if you do catch your kids playing doctor, don't freak out. Instead, discuss how it's not appropriate to handle other people's genitals, as these are very special parts of the body that shouldn't be touched by others.

At this age, your child might begin asking how babies are made. For Silverberg, the easiest and most inclusive answer is, "There are lots of ways." The author, whose first book What Makes a Baby answers this question for the preschool set, explains, "The amount of detail one goes into really depends on how much you think your child can comprehend." If your child wants more information, you might try something like, "Two grown-ups get their bodies together and share the sperm and the egg to make a child like you, or sometimes they get the sperm or egg from someone else." Silverberg adds that it's fine to tell your child that some details, like how sperm and egg meet, will be discussed later. "It's just important not to lie." He adds that it's important to actually follow up with those questions and not just refuse to talk about certain things.

Thornhill suggests exploring how babies are made by telling kids their own birth story, which lets you tailor the details to your family's specific situation. Just be sure to note that your child's birth story is just one of many ways that families are made.

It's important to introduce kids of this age group to the idea that families and relationships can be built in various ways. If your kids are part of or are regularly around non-traditional families, they'll naturally pick up on this, explains Silverberg. But if they aren't, "Make sure that you have a few good books that aren't just on nuclear, heterosexual families."

How to talk to kids about sex when they're 6 to 8 years old

"Calmly explain that those sorts of websites are about grown-ups doing grown-up things," she says. While there's no need to present pornography as something bad, you will want to state that these types of websites are just for adults.

At this age, you can also speak more explicitly to kids about sexual abuse. Silverberg explains that it's important for kids to know about this unfortunate reality in order to protect themselves or help a friend who experiences abuse. How detailed this talk gets really depends on your child.

Silverberg recommends starting with the basics, such as how no one should be touching them without their permission, then revisiting the subject a few days later to gauge what they understood and how they feel. If your child gets upset, you may want to hit pause on this topic until they're a little older.

By now, it might be time to explain the actual mechanics of sex to kids. Silverberg notes that there's nothing wrong with introducing this information earlier if your child seems ready for it, or delaying it a bit if you think they won't comprehend it. To make this discussion easier on you, he suggests incorporating a good book that's aimed at anticipating your child's many questions.

Talking about sex can go hand-in-hand with another key topic: puberty. Thornhill says when kids are around age six, this can be a simple discussion about how bodies change as we grow. For example, you could compare photos of when they were little with what they look like now. Silverberg recommends saving the more detailed puberty talk until just before your child or those in her peer group start experiencing it. Otherwise, he says, "It seems like you're talking about an alien planet."

Children with vaginas can expect to start puberty between nine and eleven. For them, a key indicator that this change is underway is the development of breast buds. This change usually starts before age 10. Menstruation follows a few years later, usually around age 12 (though earlier isn't uncommon). Children with penises tend to start puberty closer to 10, with pubic hair growth being the first clear sign. No matter how you approach talking about sex, this age is also a good time to talk about gender identity.

When it comes to discussing puberty, Silverberg recommends sharing a good book with your child that can walk you both through puberty's more technical aspects, such as the differences between testosterone and estrogen, and why and how our bodies undergo changes in hair, genitals, voices, etc. He also says to make this a general talk. "It isn't that girls get one lesson and boys get one lesson." Kids should learn not only about their own bodies, but also other bodies. While the detailed mechanics of puberty might be limited to one conversation, the impact of this transition should be an ongoing discussion.

"Kids of this age also need to learn more about the range of gender expression," says Silverberg. If it's a topic you've been shying away from, educate yourself first. Thornhill suggests starting the conversation with how you can't tell someone's gender based on their genitals.

How to talk to kids about sex when they're 9 to 12 years old

Silverberg explains that now is when you should start talking about sexism and sexualisation. Use examples found in the media or even in your own community-for example, a grandparent who thinks boys should only have short hair-to spark discussions. These chats can be depressing, but support kids to find their power, and point out positive examples of individuals who have overcome stereotypes. Also, point out how progress has been made; for example, with more women working in STEM fields.

This age is full of emotional and social changes, and girls in particular may struggle with body issues. Thornhill encourages parents to check in with their children about how they're feeling and what they're wondering about. "At this age, it's really just emphasizing over and over again that it's normal," when it comes to how their bodies are changing.

Something else you want to normalize is safe sex. "By 11, you want to start having conversations about sexual choices and safer sex," says Thornhill. She admits that, as a mother herself, this idea is a bit jarring, but it's also crucial, since research shows that teens make bet ter choices when they know the risks. Thornhill says you should highlight different types of birth control and explain the basics of how they work.

Ask your child "What do you think it means to be respectful on social media?" And when high-profile stories on sexting or online bullying are in the news, use them as jumping-off points to ask your child how they would handle similar situations.

How to talk to your teenager about sex

Talking with your kids about sex, sexuality and sexual behaviors early in life pays off once they've hit their teens. If you've established yourself as open to discussing those topics, "Your kids are probably going to feel more comfortable talking to you and asking you questions," says Thornhill.

But if you've been quiet on the subject of sex up till now, she recommends sitting down with your teen and stating that you're changing your ways. "Even just hearing that is really reassuring for most kids," Thornhill says.

Peter Dazeley/ Getty Images

While you generally want to minimize the lectures, teens need real talk about birth control and sexually transmitted infections, says Thornhill. You might even want to supply condoms or set up a doctor's appointment for hormonal birth control.

It's also important to frequently discuss consent in sexual relationships. "You need to be thinking about how to help them protect themselves against pressure and dating violence," says Silverberg, adding that conversations around these topics should include the impact drinking and drugs can have on judgment.

Frequent conversations around healthy relationships are crucial. If your child is reluctant to talk about herself, Silverberg recommends that you talk about "friends at school" instead. You may also want to share relationship stories from your past.

Ultimately, when it comes to teens, you want to empower your child to be able to evaluate risks and make good decisions. "Helping kids understand that they have a gut, an inner voice, and they can and should listen to it, is a big part of what sex education is about," says Silverberg. And by discussing the right topics at the right ages, you're setting your child up to do just that.

This article was originally published on Sep 24, 2021

Weekly Newsletter

Keep up with your baby's development, get the latest parenting content and receive special offers from our partners

© Copyright 2023 SJC Media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to talk to kids about sex - Today's Parent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This subject can be daunting- so we asked experts how to talk to kids about sex covering everything from intercourse, puberty, gender identity and consent.

# data[].attributes.body
Since we discussed cohabitation in class on Tuesday I decided to look for articles relating to this topic for this weeks padlet post. Here is an article explaining downsides to cohabiting. Do you agree with this article and the points made? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

As Jennifer and I worked to answer her question, "How did this happen?" we talked about how she and her boyfriend went from dating to cohabiting. Her response was consistent with studies reporting that most couples say it "just happened."

"We were sleeping over at each other's places all the time," she said. "We liked to be together, so it was cheaper and more convenient. It was a quick decision but if it didn't work out there was a quick exit."

She was talking about what researchers call "sliding, not deciding." Moving from dating to sleeping over to sleeping over a lot to cohabitation can be a gradual slope, one not marked by rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation. Couples bypass talking about why they want to live together and what it will mean.

WHEN researchers ask cohabitors these questions, partners often have different, unspoken - even unconscious - agendas. Women are more likely to view cohabitation as a step toward marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship or postpone commitment, and this gender asymmetry is associated with negative interactions and lower levels of commitment even after the relationship progresses to marriage. One thing men and women do agree on, however, is that their standards for a live-in partner are lower than they are for a spouse.

Sliding into cohabitation wouldn't be a problem if sliding out were as easy. But it isn't. Too often, young adults enter into what they imagine will be low-cost, low-risk living situations only to find themselves unable to get out months, even years, later. It's like signing up for a credit card with 0 percent interest. At the end of 12 months when the interest goes up to 23 percent you feel stuck because your balance is too high to pay off. In fact, cohabitation can be exactly like that. In behavioral economics, it's called consumer lock-in.

Lock-in is the decreased likelihood to search for, or change to, another option once an investment in something has been made. The greater the setup costs, the less likely we are to move to another, even better, situation, especially when faced with switching costs, or the time, money and effort it requires to make a change.

Cohabitation is loaded with setup and switching costs. Living together can be fun and economical, and the setup costs are subtly woven in. After years of living among roommates' junky old stuff, couples happily split the rent on a nice one-bedroom apartment. They share wireless and pets and enjoy shopping for new furniture together. Later, these setup and switching costs have an impact on how likely they are to leave.

Jennifer said she never really felt that her boyfriend was committed to her. "I felt like I was on this multiyear, never-ending audition to be his wife," she said. "We had all this furniture. We had our dogs and all the same friends. It just made it really, really difficult to break up. Then it was like we got married because we were living together once we got into our 30s."

I've had other clients who also wish they hadn't sunk years of their 20s into relationships that would have lasted only months had they not been living together. Others want to feel committed to their partners, yet they are confused about whether they have consciously chosen their mates. Founding relationships on convenience or ambiguity can interfere with the process of claiming the people we love. A life built on top of "maybe you'll do" simply may not feel as dedicated as a life built on top of the "we do" of commitment or marriage.

The unfavorable connection between cohabitation and divorce does seem to be lessening, however, according to a report released last month by the Department of Health and Human Services. More good news is that a 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that nearly two-thirds of Americans saw cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

This shared and serious view of cohabitation may go a long way toward further attenuating the cohabitation effect because the most recent research suggests that serial cohabitators, couples with differing levels of commitment and those who use cohabitation as a test are most at risk for poor relationship quality and eventual relationship dissolution.

Cohabitation is here to stay, and there are things young adults can do to protect their relationships from the cohabitation effect. It's important to discuss each person's motivation and commitment level beforehand and, even better, to view cohabitation as an intentional step toward, rather than a convenient test for, marriage or partnership.

It also makes sense to anticipate and regularly evaluate constraints that may keep you from leaving.

I am not for or against living together, but I am for young adults knowing that, far from safeguarding against divorce and unhappiness, moving in with someone can increase your chances of making a mistake - or of spending too much time on a mistake. A mentor of mine used to say, "The best time to work on someone's marriage is before he or she has one," and in our era, that may mean before cohabitation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses sex education. There are many debates on this topic. Some are for abstinence only programs and some are against it. This article lists reasons against abstinence only sex education. Do you agree with abstinence only sex education or do you believe students should also be taught about contraception and sexually transmitted infections? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The New Health Care

Image

Credit Credit Tamara Shopsin

Sex education has long occupied an ideological fault line in American life. Religious conservatives worry that teaching teenagers about birth control will encourage premarital sex. Liberals argue that failing to teach about it ensures more unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. So it was a welcome development when, a few years ago, Congress began to shift funding for sex education to focus on evidence-based outcomes, letting effectiveness determine which programs would get money.

But a recent move by the Trump administration seems set to undo this progress.

Federal support for abstinence-until-marriage programs had increased sharply under the administration of George W. Bush, and focus on it continued at a state and local level after he left office. From 2000 until 2014, the percentage of schools that required education in human sexuality fell to 48 percent from 67 percent. By 2014, half of middle schools and more than three-quarters of high schools were focusing on abstinence. Only a quarter of middle schools and three-fifths of high schools taught about birth control. In 1995, 81 percent of boys and 87 percent of girls reported learning of birth control in school.

Sex education focused on an abstinence-only approach fails in a number of ways.

First, it's increasingly impractical. Trying to persuade people to remain abstinent until they are married is only getting harder because of social trends. The median age of Americans when they first have sex in the United States is now just under 18 years for women and just over 18 years for men. The median age of first marriage is much higher, at 26.5 years for women and 29.8 for men. This gap has increased significantly over time, and with it the prevalence of premarital sex.

Second, the evidence isn't there that abstinence-only education affects outcomes. In 2007, a number of studies reviewed the efficacy of sexual education. The first was a systematic review conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. It found no good evidence to support the idea that such programs delayed the age of first sexual intercourse or reduced the number of partners an adolescent might have.

The second was a Cochrane meta-analysis that looked at studies of 13 abstinence-only programs together and found that they showed no effect on these factors, or on the use of protection like condoms. A third was published by Mathematica, a nonpartisan research organization, and it, too, found that abstinence programs had no effect on sexual abstinence for youth.

In 2010, Congress created the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, with a mandate to fund age-appropriate and evidence-based programs. Communities could apply for funding to put in only approved evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, or evaluate promising and innovative new approaches. The government chose Mathematica to determine independently which programs were evidence-based, and the list is updated with new and evolving data.

Of the many programs some groups promote as being abstinence-based, Mathematica has confirmed four as having evidence of being successful. Healthy Futures and Positive Potential had one study each showing mixed results in reducing sexual activity. Heritage Keepers and Promoting Health Among Teens (PHAT) had one study each showing positive results in reducing sexual activity.

But it's important to note that there's no evidence to support that these abstinence-based programs influence other important metrics: the number of sexual partners an adolescent might have, the use of contraceptives, the chance of contracting a sexually transmitted infection or even becoming pregnant. There are many more comprehensive programs (beyond the abstinence-only approach) on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program's list that have been shown to affect these other aspects of sexual health.

Since the program began, the teenage birthrate has dropped more than 40 percent. It's at a record low in the United States, and it has declined faster since then than in any other comparable period. Many believe that increased use of effective contraception is the primary reason for this decline; contraception, of course, is not part of abstinence-only education.

There have been further reviews since 2007. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted two meta-analyses: one on 23 abstinence programs and the other on 66 comprehensive sexual education programs. The comprehensive programs reduced sexual activity, the number of sex partners, the frequency of unprotected sexual activity, and sexually transmitted infections. They also increased the use of protection (condoms and/or hormonal contraception). The review of abstinence programs showed a reduction only in sexual activity, but the findings were inconsistent and that significance disappeared when you looked at the stronger study designs (randomized controlled trials).

This year, researchers published a systematic review of systematic reviews (there have been so many), summarizing 224 randomized controlled trials. They found that comprehensive sex education improved knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and outcomes. Abstinence-only programs did not.

Considering all this accumulating evidence, it was an unexpected setback when the Trump administration recently canceled funding for 81 projects that are part of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, saying grants would end in June 2018, two years early - a decision made without consulting Congress.

Those 81 projects showed promise and could provide us with more data. It's likely that all the work spent investigating what is effective and what isn't will be lost. The money already invested would be wasted as well.

The move is bad news in other ways, too. The program represented a shift in thinking by the federal government, away from an ideological approach and toward an evidence-based one but allowing for a variety of methods - even abstinence-only - to coexist.

The Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine has just released an updated evidence report and position paper on this topic. It argues that many universally accepted documents, as well as international human rights treaties, "provide that all people have the right to 'seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,' including information about their health." The society argues that access to sexual health information "is a basic human right and is essential to realizing the human right to the highest attainable standard of health." It says that abstinence-only-until-marriage education is unethical.

Instead of debating over the curriculum of sexual education, we should be looking at the outcomes. What's important are further decreases in teenage pregnancy and in sexually transmitted infections. We'd also like to see adolescents making more responsible decisions about their sexual health and their sexual behavior.

Abstinence as a goal is more important than abstinence as a teaching point. By the metrics listed above, comprehensive sexual health programs are more effective.

Whether for ethical reasons, for evidence-based reasons or for practical ones, continuing to demand that adolescents be taught solely abstinence-until-marriage seems like an ideologically driven mission that will fail to accomplish its goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sex Education Based on Abstinence? There's a Real Absence of Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New Health Care Sex education has long occupied an ideological fault line in American life. Religious conservatives worry that teaching teenagers about birth control will encourage premarital sex. Liberals argue that failing to teach about it ensures more unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a link to the abortion information on Planned Parenthood's website. Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal? Based on your thoughts, do you think there should be exceptions to its legality or illegality? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are two ways of ending a pregnancy: in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill. Both are safe and very common. If you're pregnant and thinking about abortion, you may have lots of questions. We're here to help.

Considering Abortion

Trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you? Here are answers to common questions.

The Abortion Pill

The abortion pill works up to 11 weeks of pregnancy. You can usually have your abortion in the privacy of your own home.

In-Clinic Abortion

In-clinic abortions are safe, simple medical procedures provided by doctors and nurses at a health center.

Need answers? Chat with us.

Between our sexual health educators or chat bot, we got you covered.
Chat now

Need answers? Chat with us.

Between our sexual health educators or chat bot, we got you covered.
Chat now

Ask us anything. Seriously.

Between our trained sexual health educators or chat bot, we can answer your questions about your sexual health whenever you have them. And they are free and confidential.

CHAT NOW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion Information | Information About Your Options

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion is a safe and legal way to end a pregnancy. Learning more about abortion methods and options can help you decide if it is the right choice for you

# data[].attributes.body
Here is an article on birth control. The author is arguing that birth control gives women the power to decide what happens to their bodies. Many women today use birth control for various reasons. Do you think that all women should be able to receive birth control? Do you think there is anything wrong with taking birth control? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bloomberg Businessweek recognized birth control as a top economic driver for women and one of the most transformational developments in the business sector in the last 85 years. According to a University of Michigan study, one-third of the wage gains women have achieved since the 1960s are the result of access to oral contraceptives. Prior to the advent of oral contraceptives, women earned 60 cents for every male dollar. While it's still not an even playing field, women now make 78 cents for every male dollar. Furthermore, research suggests a 3% increase in weekly wages and a 9% increase in career earnings for each year of delayed childbearing, even after accounting for differences in other background characteristics that could affect a woman's earnings.

Economists find that women do significantly better in the labor market when they can better time their entry into parenthood. Melinda Gates put it best when she said, "It's no accident that my three kids were born three years apart-or that I didn't have my first child until I'd finished graduate school and devoted a decade to my career at Microsoft. My family, my career, my life as I know it are all the direct result of contraceptives."

But birth control is more than just earning potential and the chance to lean in; it makes so much else possible. The CDC recognized birth control as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century and it is clear to see why. Birth control gives women the ability to plan, prevent, and space pregnancies, which is directly linked to benefits to women, men, children, and society. Those benefits include more educational and economic opportunities, healthier babies, more stable families, and reduced taxpayer burden. Since birth control has become widely available, there has been a staggering increase in women's wages, an increase in the number of female college graduates, and dramatically improved family wellbeing.

Clearly, phenomenal progress has been made and national polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States-across all political, economic, racial, and ethnic spectrums-support policies that provide women with access to contraception.

Women have come incredibly far since the years that birth control was legalized, but progress is not victory: those 21 female CEOs hold only 4.2% of CEO positions in America's 500 biggest companies. In addition, there are millions of women who lack access to birth control; recent research conducted by The National Campaign shows that in the U.S. almost 20 million women eligible for publicly funded contraception live in contraceptive deserts. If moves to repeal the Affordable Care Act and eliminate or weaken the Title X Family Planning Program are successful, millions more women could lose access to birth control.

So today, as we celebrate Women's History Month, let's all thank birth control for all it has made possible for us and our families. In fact, I ask you to share your thoughts on social media using the #ThxBirthControl hashtag and pledge to have a conversation about all that birth control makes possible with friends, family, constituents, neighbors, and most importantly, those who represent you in Congress. Let's remind everyone that deciding if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant is one of the most important life decisions a woman can make.
Ginny Ehrlich is the CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Follow NBC News Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Birth Control Gives Women the Power to Decide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bloomberg Businessweek recognized birth control as a top economic driver for women and one of the most transformational developments in the business sector in the last 85 years. According to a University of Michigan study, one-third of the wage gains women have achieved since the 1960s are the result of access to oral contraceptives.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is written about Gangs who seek profit from and support themselves by engaging in sex trafficking. The Justice Department is currently working to crack down on sex trafficking. Law enforcement officers are being trained on how to identify sex trafficking and ways to offer support to its victims. There are also strict consequences that have been put into place by Congress for sex traffickers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The F.B.I. leads the Justice Department's law enforcement efforts against human trafficking, with support from trafficking prosecutors and coordinators from our program to fight child pornography, Project Safe Childhood, in each of the 94 United States attorney's offices. Those efforts are assisted by teams of prosecutors based at the Justice Department's headquarters and deployed throughout the country to assist in dismantling gangs and sex traffickers, including the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and the Organized Crime and Gang Section.

We are working to help train state, local and tribal law enforcement officers to identify trafficking cases and provide support for victims. That will help them to uncover human trafficking crimes and combat modern forms of slavery.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves," Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1859. That is especially true of human traffickers, who rob victims of their freedom. The Justice Department, in turn, punishes traffickers by taking their freedom through imprisonment.

Fortunately, Congress enacted a sex trafficking statute that includes mandatory minimum punishments. Under this law, a sex trafficker who uses force, fraud or coercion, or who prostitutes a victim under the age of 14, will receive a mandatory minimum term of 15 years in prison and may receive a life sentence. Under another law, the Child Exploitation Enterprise statute, gang members who meet the statutory criteria for sex trafficking are guaranteed 20 years of imprisonment and may receive a life sentence.

Mandatory minimum punishments are important tools for fighting human trafficking. Many gangs plan their activities in terms of financial profit and loss. Incarceration deprives them of opportunities to make money and exploit more victims. Mandatory minimum sentences deter would-be traffickers by ensuring that punishments are strong, swift and certain.

Criminals endanger law-abiding Americans, and gangs represent a particular threat. The Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas observed years ago that "gangs fill the daily lives of many of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens with a terror." The Department of Justice is dedicated to combating criminal gangs and their use of sex trafficking to finance their growth. We will not allow gangs to continue targeting vulnerable youth and spreading violence and despair.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Getting Tough on Sex Traffickers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The F.B.I. leads the Justice Department's law enforcement efforts against human trafficking, with support from trafficking prosecutors and coordinators from our program to fight child pornography, Project Safe Childhood, in each of the 94 United States attorney's offices.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by Rachael Denhollander, explains her experience facing sexual abuse from the USA Gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar. Nassar has now been sentenced 175 years in prison for the sexual abuse of 156 women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My education as an attorney prepared me for the process and presentation. But absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the pain of being the first to go public with my accusations in The Indianapolis Star.

I lost my church. I lost my closest friends as a result of advocating for survivors who had been victimized by similar institutional failures in my own community.

I lost every shred of privacy.

When a new friend googled my name or added me as a friend on Facebook, the most intimate details of my life became available long before we had even exchanged phone numbers. I avoided the grocery stores on some days, to make sure my children didn't see my face on the newspaper or magazine. I was asked questions about things no one should know when I least wanted to talk.

And the effort it took to move this case forward - especially as some called me an "ambulance chaser" just "looking for a payday" - often felt crushing.

Yet all of it served as a reminder: These were the very cultural dynamics that had allowed Larry Nassar to remain in power.

I knew that the farthest I could run from my abuser, and the people that let him prey on children for decades, was to choose the opposite of what that man, and his enablers, had become. To choose to find and speak the truth, no matter what it cost.

As the calls began coming in to the Michigan State University Police Department and the number of reports grew, my horror did as well. Victim after victim came forward. Some were abused as young as 6 years old. Some were victimized nearly three decades ago, others only days before my report was filed. Far worse, victims began to come forward who had already tried to sound the alarm years before even I had walked into that M.S.U. clinic to meet the celebrated doctor. Not only were they suffering the devastation of sexual assault, they were suffering deep wounds from having been silenced, blamed and often even sent back for continued abuse.

More than 200 women have now alleged abuse by Larry Nassar. Even more staggering than that number is the revelation that at least 14 coaches, trainers, psychologists or colleagues had been warned of his abuse. What is truly stomach turning is the realization that the vast majority of those victims were abused after Larry's conduct was first reported by two teenagers to M.S.U.'s head gymnastics coach as far back as 1997.

So how did this happen? How, for 30 years, did this monster manage to prey on little girls and young women without being caught?

Partly it is because Larry was an expert predator. He was calculating, deliberate and a master manipulator. Much of the abuse, mine included, took place with our own mothers in the room, their view casually blocked by Larry, his hand hidden under a towel, sheet or loose clothing.

But Larry's cunning is only a small piece of this story. Because most pedophiles present a wholesome external persona, they are able to successfully ingratiate themselves into communities. Research shows that every pedophile is also reported an average of at least seven times before adults take the reports of abuse seriously and act on them. In many ways, the sexual assault scandal that was 30 years in the making was only a symptom of a much deeper cultural problem - the unwillingness to speak the truth against one's own community.

The result of putting reputation and popularity ahead of girls and young women? The vile stories you heard in that courtroom this week, all of which could have been prevented.

Now that the world has been transfixed by our case, we must make sure not even one more young woman is preyed upon like I was.

The first step toward changing the culture that lead to this atrocity is to hold enablers of abuse accountable. There is much that needs to be done legislatively, including extending or removing the statute of limitations on criminal and civil charges related to sexual assault, and strengthening mandatory reporting laws and ensuring truth in sentencing, so that dangerous offenders are not released early to damage more children.

Most important, we need to encourage and support those brave enough to speak out against their own communities. Predators rely on community protectionism to silence victims and keep them in power. Far too often, our commitment to our political party, our religious group, our sport, our college or a prominent member of our community, causes us to choose to disbelieve or to turn away from the victim. Far too often, it feels easier and safer to see only what we want to see. Fear of jeopardizing some overarching political, religious, financial or other ideology - or even just losing friends or status - leads to willful ignorance of what is right in front of our own eyes, in the shape and form of innocent and vulnerable children.

Ask yourself: How much is a child worth?

Everyone decent human being knows the answer to that question. Now it is time to act like it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Rachael Denhollander: The Price I Paid for Taking on Larry Nassar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My education as an attorney prepared me for the process and presentation. But absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the pain of being the first to go public with my accusations in The Indianapolis Star. I lost my church.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses police officers using their badge and power to commit sexual crimes. As the article states, every five days a police officer is accused of sexual misconduct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
She was driving in a park with two male friends when a pair of plainclothes New York City police detectives drove up in an unmarked van. The officers, from the Brooklyn South precinct, stopped the trio for being in a public park after dark. The officers searched the car and found marijuana and the anti-anxiety medication Klonopin. They arrested her, put her in the back of the van in handcuffs and ordered her friends not to follow.

According to prosecutors, the detectives proceeded to force the 18-year-old woman to perform oral sex on one of them, who then raped her. The other officer then allegedly forced her into oral sex, as well. The 50-count indictment also alleges that the officers, who are facing charges of rape, kidnapping and official misconduct, threatened her with criminal charges if she didn't cooperate. The defendants have since quit the force, though their attorneys have sought to undermine the young woman's account.

This story broke in October to shock and outrage. While I share the outrage, as someone who has studied police sexual violence for more than a decade - and as a survivor - this young woman's experience didn't surprise me. In fact, it is representative of national patterns of sexual violence by officers during traffic stops and handling of minor offenses, drug arrests and police interactions with teenagers.

Research on "police sexual misconduct" - a term used to describe actions from sexual harassment and extortion to forcible rape by officers - overwhelmingly concludes that it is a systemic problem. A 2015 investigation by the Buffalo News, based on a national review of media reports and court records over a 10-year period, concluded that an officer is accused of an act of sexual misconduct at least every five days. The vast majority of incidents, the report found, involve motorists, young people in job-shadowing programs, students, victims of violence and informants. In more than 60 percent of the cases reviewed, an officer was convicted of a crime or faced other consequences.

Former police officer turned professor Phil Stinson conducted a national analysis of more than 500 officer arrests for sexual misconduct over a three-year period. He found that half involved on-duty misconduct and noted that off-duty misconduct is often facilitated by the power of the badge or the presence of an official service weapon. A fifth of arrests involved forcible rape, another fifth forcible fondling.

In a second study, funded by the National Institute of Justice and analyzing more than 6,700 officer arrests nationwide during a seven-year period, Stinson found that half of arrests for sexual misconduct were for incidents involving minors. According to a 2010 Cato Institute review, sexual misconduct is the second-most-frequently reported form of police misconduct, after excessive force.

"Over the years I would see it all," former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper wrote in his book, " Breaking Rank." He described cases in which cops fondled prisoners, made false traffic stops of attractive women, traded sexual favors for freedom, had sex with teenagers and raped children. "Sexual predation by police officers happens far more often than people in the business are willing to admit."

Research consistently shows that police officers target young women like the Brooklyn teenager. A 2000 survey of nearly 1,000 New York City youth found that 2 in 5 young women - almost half of whom were black, Latina or Asian - reported sexual harassment by officers. A 2003 national study of cases reported in the media over more than a decade, conducted by the Police Professionalism Initiative at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, found that 40 percent of reported cases of police sexual misconduct involved teens, often young women involved in youth engagement and job-shadowing programs. One young woman, Diana Guerrero, filed a lawsuit against the city of Las Cruces, N.M., after she was assaulted during a "ride along" with an officer in 2011. The officer said in a taped confession: "The badge gets you the p---y and the p---y gets your badge, you know?"

Officers also prey on domestic-violence survivors, who are particularly vulnerable to abuses by people they call on for protection. One officer quoted in an investigative report by the Philadelphia Inquirer said, "I would see women that were vulnerable where I could appear as a knight in shining armor." He explained, "I'm going to help this woman who's being abused by her boyfriend, and then I'll ask for sexual favors." Another bragged that getting dates with such victims was like " shooting fish in a barrel. "

Police also target women they don't think would be believed if they came forward, including women of color, transgender women, women who use drugs or alcohol, and women involved in the sex trade. The 2016 Justice Department investigation of the Baltimore Police Department found that officers extorted sex from women under the threat of prostitution charges. Two Los Angeles Police Department officers are currently on trial for extorting sex from women facing drug charges. Former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw, who is serving a 263-year sentence after being accused of sexual assault by 13 black women and girls, targeted young women, women who used drugs and women he believed to be "working girls."

These cases are unique only in that the officers faced consequences for their actions. Accountability is rare. One study found that in 41 percent of cases, officers charged with sexual violence had been previously accused of sexual misconduct - between two and 21 prior allegations - but had remained on the force. Even when officers are terminated or allowed to resign, many are able to simply move on to another department, in what researchers dub the "officer shuffle."

Why aren't departments doing more to stop sexual violence by officers? Despite materials such as "Addressing Sexual Offenses and Misconduct by Law Enforcement," a guide published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 2011, most police departments have no policies or training making it clear that on-duty sexual misconduct against civilians is prohibited. The Obama-era President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, the Justice Department's guidance on gender bias in policing, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission and various researchers have all taken the position that departments need to, at a minimum, enact and enforce policies prohibiting sexual violence by officers. When asked why more departments haven't taken up the charge, an IACP spokesman simply said, "We don't see a groundswell from people who are protesting their police departments for this kind of activity."

While that needs to change, departments shouldn't have to be asked twice to explicitly tell officers that sexually harassing and assaulting members of the public is unacceptable and will result in termination.

We should also know by now that we can't depend on the police to police themselves. Yet there is often nowhere that a woman who has been sexually assaulted by an officer can go to report it - except the police. If she goes to the district attorney or a civilian oversight agency, the case is usually referred to a police department for investigation. Intimidation is common. The Brooklyn teenager said at least nine police officers came to her hospital room, discouraging her from going through with a rape kit. In a Chicago case, Tiawanda Moore was prosecuted for recording investigating officers as they tried to discourage her from filing a sexual misconduct complaint. (She was acquitted after a year-long trial.) In Eugene, Ore., an officer who was later convicted of sexually abusing a dozen women put his service weapon to one victim's genitals and threatened to blow her up "from the inside out" if she told anyone.

Municipalities could make it easier for victims to come forward by enabling civilian oversight agencies to investigate complaints of sexual violence by police. Indeed, the Justice Department investigation of the Chicago Police Department recommended that civilian investigators be empowered and trained to receive such complaints. City legislators and advocates tried to transfer jurisdiction over sexual misconduct complaints to the new Civilian Office of Police Accountability - only to be stymied by the police union.

But we shouldn't just rely on victims of police sexual assault to come forward. A range of measures, from small steps to structural changes, can be taken to prevent and detect police sexual violence. Departments can monitor data from individual officers' traffic or pedestrian stops to determine whether they are stopping a disproportionate number of women. They can use GPS to track patrol car movements, a strategy that corroborated the testimony of Holtzclaw's victims. Supervisors can show up unexpectedly to check on officers on late-night patrol. Many departments already require officers to report mileage when they transport arrestees, in part to prevent detours to secluded areas to force or extort sex. Investigators can also conduct stings to catch officers in the act, something the New York and Los Angeles departments have done successfully on occasion but not nearly often enough.

Research and investigations conclude that police sexual assault is facilitated by the structure of policing itself. As Stinson put it: "Police routinely operate alone and largely free from any direct supervision, either from administrators or fellow officers. Police commonly encounter citizens who are vulnerable, usually because they are victims, criminal suspects, or perceived as 'suspicious' and subject to the power and coercive authority granted to police. Police-citizen interactions often occur in the late-night hours that provide low public visibility and ample opportunities to those officers who are able and willing to take advantage of citizens to commit acts of sexual deviance and to perpetrate sex crimes." Police officers wield significant power and discretion, and are protected by a blue wall of silence when they abuse them.

In light of these realities, the goal should be to reduce the number of police encounters and the power officers use to extort or force sex. That would mean not flooding communities with officers, and not giving those officers the ability to hold mandatory-minimum drug sentences over women's heads, contrary to Attorney General Jeff Sessions's current priorities. It would mean taking a public health approach to drug and prostitution offenses, and taking police officers - who use the serious consequences of such charges to extort sex and rape women - out of the equation, either by decriminalizing those offenses or eliminating arrests through pre-arrest diversion programs.

Survivors of sexual assault by police deserve solutions that strike at the root of the problem, instead of mere outrage at each crime that happens to make the news. No survivor of sexual violence should be ignored simply because her perpetrator was a police officer.
outlook@washpost.com
Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perspective | How some cops use the badge to commit sex crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
She was driving in a park with two male friends when a pair of plainclothes New York City police detectives drove up in an unmarked van. The officers, from the Brooklyn South precinct, stopped the trio for being in a public park after dark.